Nigerian singer Shallipopi has opened up about a dispute with music executive Dapper, alleging that his former associate sold his music catalogue without his approval.
The singer’s remarks have sparked fresh discussion within Nigeria’s entertainment industry, particularly over the ownership and management of music rights.
Shallipopi accused Dapper of deceiving him and others during their business dealings, alleging that the executive took actions involving his music catalogue without proper authorisation.
“You scammed us, sold my catalogue,” Shallipopi was quoted as saying.
The singer also indicated that he could seek the intervention of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over the matter. Such a move could potentially lead to an investigation if a formal complaint is made and the allegations fall within the commission’s mandate.
The claims have not been independently established, and there was no indication in the information available that Dapper had been found guilty of any wrongdoing. His response to the allegations would be necessary to provide his side of the dispute.
The controversy is significant because music catalogues have become valuable assets in the global entertainment business. Revenue from streaming, royalties, publishing, licensing and other forms of exploitation can make ownership of an artiste’s catalogue financially substantial.
Shallipopi, whose real name is Crown Uzama, has emerged as a prominent figure in Nigeria’s rapidly evolving Afrobeats and street-pop scene. His songs have gained widespread popularity, particularly among younger audiences, while his distinctive style has helped establish him as one of the country’s notable new-generation artistes.
The dispute also reflects a broader challenge within the entertainment industry, where disagreements can arise over contracts, management arrangements, royalties and intellectual property rights.
Industry observers have repeatedly stressed the importance of artistes understanding the terms of agreements they sign and maintaining proper documentation of ownership and financial arrangements.
If Shallipopi proceeds with a formal complaint, the relevant authorities could examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged catalogue transaction and determine whether any offence was committed.
For now, the matter remains an allegation between the parties, rather than an established finding of misconduct.
Further statements from Shallipopi, Dapper or their respective representatives could shed more light on the disagreement and clarify the ownership status of the singer’s catalogue.
The controversy nevertheless highlights the growing financial importance of music rights and the need for greater transparency in artiste-management relationships.
